***Conference Apocalypse Part IV: The NeverEnding Story

[T-town Sooner]

ACC wish list in order


1. FSU
2. UNC
3. GT
4. Clemson
5. NCST
6. Miami
7. VT
8. Louisville
9. UVA
10. UCF


I'm ok with any 4 or 6 on this list (preferably 6) as long as #1 is included. In reality #4 and #6 will be available to us if any deal happens.

GT going to big 10 take a team we would like but also increases the chances of a raid happening.

[lobster999]

ACC wish list in order


1. FSU
2. UNC
3. GT
4. Clemson
5. NCST
6. Miami
7. VT
8. Louisville
9. UVA
10. UCF


I'm ok with any 4 or 6 on this list (preferably 6) as long as #1 is included. In reality #4 and #6 will be available to us if any deal happens.

GT going to big 10 take a team we would like but also increases the chances of a raid happening.

Why is GT so high on your list? Just curious...

[S11-Baylor]

ACC wish list in order


1. FSU
2. UNC
3. GT
4. Clemson
5. NCST
6. Miami
7. VT
8. Louisville
9. UVA
10. UCF


I'm ok with any 4 or 6 on this list (preferably 6) as long as #1 is included. In reality #4 and #6 will be available to us if any deal happens.

GT going to big 10 take a team we would like but also increases the chances of a raid happening.

My take:

1- FSU
2- UNC
3- Clemson
4- VT
5- Miami (if sanctions are dodged)
6- GT
7- UL
8- NC State
9- UVA
10- USF or Cincy

[T-town Sooner]

"Why is GT so high on your list? Just curious..."


rivalry with SEC team, Big city, solid history & fans...

Would be neat to have

UT-ATM
FSU-UF
Clem-USC
KU-MU
GT-UGA

OU-Arky???
WVU-Kentucky???

and maybe some others, Big XVI-SEC, all Thanksgiving weekend

[Camel at Sea]

"Why is GT so high on your list? Just curious..."


rivalry with SEC team, Big city, solid history & fans...

Would be neat to have

UT-ATM
FSU-UF
Clem-USC
KU-MU
GT-UGA

OU-Arky???
WVU-Kentucky???

and maybe some others, Big XVI-SEC, all Thanksgiving weekend

Completely agree with this concept. I'd love FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, Louisville, and one more, depending on who is available and what direction the SEC goes. Even if our worst case scenario for #16 is Tulane, that's still a massive upgrade to football, basketball, baseball, academics, and intra-conference road trip destinations.

[T-town Sooner]

Tulane is where we disagree

I don't want Tulane, would rather have UCF and/or stop at 14.

Same goes for Cincy Pitt and Rutgers, don't want them

[Spade1000]

**** Tulane. There , I said it. We already have Baylor, and UT no need for more "dead weight" in the name of academia. UCF/USF would be the route to go instead of the Green Waves , or whatever they are called. I cringe every time i see them mentioned. Might as well invite Harvard, Princeton, and or Yale. ::

[Camel at Sea]

Tulane is where we disagree

I don't want Tulane, would rather have UCF and/or stop at 14.

Same goes for Cincy Pitt and Rutgers, don't want them

If we get FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT, and Louisville, I don't really care who #16 is (provided we exclude BYU). It could be Pitt, Wake Forest, or Tulane to make the academic types happy. We could get a 3rd Florida school to help our more eastern teams recruit there. We could add UConn for the basketball program. I don't think it really matters, unless Notre Dame is available - and I'm ****uming they aren't.

My personal opinion is that with that lineup, we'd essentially be creating an SEC/Big 12 duopoly of college sports in the south. The Big 12 would need an angle to use against the SEC to win the perception battle. To that end, with the right additions, it should be easy to sell the league's destination cities (Miami, Atl, Ft. Worth, Austin, New Orleans), superior academics, etc., to potential fans and recruits, and try to stick an "old/backwoods/aggy" label on SEC schools.

[Juan Cena]

The Big 12 can take Georgia Tech. It just has to take it physically. Like move the whole dang thing lock, stock, and barrel out if the ATL.

[Redhawk]

SEC will ‘keep an open mind’ on Big 12 partenership

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports...-partenership/

The Big 12 and SEC have already come together on a postseason game that they hope will become their version of the Rose Bowl. Now, the two conferences could be looking to deepen the relationship between the leagues.

While talks thus far have been exploratory at best, an SEC official confirmed to the Birmingham News that they would be open to continuing discussions on an extended partnership with the Big 12. Per the News, that would include regular-season football and basketball scheduling as well as, the paper writes, “marketing and possibly even television partnerships.”

“That’s a situation we would keep an open mind on, but we haven’t had a lot of significant discussions at this point,” Womack said. “There’s a lot of different ways that could work. At this point, we’re continuing to move forward with scheduling the conference as we’ve planned.”

In an interview with the Austin-American Statesman late last week, commissioner Bob Bowlsby acknowledged that the Big 12 is looking into an alliance with the ACC as well as two other unspecified conferences. The SEC is now confirmed to be one of the other two, while it’s widely believed the Pac-12 would be the other Bowlsby declined to name.

The conventional wisdom is that a partnership such as the 10-team Big 12 is discussing could help head off another round of conference expansion, although all it would take is for one league — specifically, the Big Ten — to add members to make any alliance talk moot.

In late December of 2011, the Big Ten and Pac-12 announced a scheduling agreement between the two conferences that was slated to begin in 2017. The goal of the agreement was for each of the 12 members of the Pac-12 to face a member of the 12-school Big Ten in football, strengthening the nonconference schedules of both leagues. In July of last year, and thanks in large part to the Pac-12′s nine-game conference schedule, the agreement was called off.

Four months later, the Big Ten announced the additions of Maryland and Rutgers, boosting the conference’s membership to the same 14-team level as the SEC and ACC — after the latter raided the Big East for Louisville, of course

[RockFlagandEagle]

The only thing Tulane would serve is a location between the Big XII east and west .

[S11-Baylor]

If we get FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT, and Louisville, I don't really care who #16 is (provided we exclude BYU). It could be Pitt, Wake Forest, or Tulane to make the academic types happy. We could get a 3rd Florida school to help our more eastern teams recruit there. We could add UConn for the basketball program. I don't think it really matters, unless Notre Dame is available - and I'm ****uming they aren't.

My personal opinion is that with that lineup, we'd essentially be creating an SEC/Big 12 duopoly of college sports in the south. The Big 12 would need an angle to use against the SEC to win the perception battle. To that end, with the right additions, it should be easy to sell the league's destination cities (Miami, Atl, Ft. Worth, Austin, New Orleans), superior academics, etc., to potential fans and recruits, and try to stick an "old/backwoods/aggy" label on SEC schools.

16 isn't critical if FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT, and UL are a package of 5. At that point Pitt would probably be it (academics, hoops, backyard brawl, old timey history (marino, dorsett, etc) but they honestly do nothing for me.

[Master Pandemonium]

Tulane isn't worthless. They add more to the Big 12 then almost half of the Big 12 adds.

These are the ****ets that a program potentially brings to a conference:

1) Great football program. Of which, there are about 15-20 nationally. The Big 12 has a whopping 2 great programs, used to have 3. This is the only ****et that is valuable, in and of itself. If you bring this, you don't need to bring any of the other ****ets.

If your program doesn't qualify for #1, then it can still be valuable if it includes 2 or more of the secondary ****ets below:

2) Great recruiting hotbed. There are 4 in the country: FL, TX, LA, CA. Within these states, some areas are more valuable than others (Houston metro is more valuable than, say, Lubbock).

3) Population. If a university is located next to a major metro area, it provides the following benefits: possible (or actual) ratings and cable network potential. If Rutgers ever gets to be a good program, it will bring more eyeballs and ratings then, say, Kansas State. If Rutgers goes 10-3 in the Big 10, and KSU goes 10-3 in the Big 12, Rutgers will bring more advertising revenue to the Big 10 then KSU would to the Big 12. The bandwagon potential is greater if a major metro area can be tapped. A cable network taxes cable subscribers whether the subscriber wants the Big 10, Big 12, SEC network or not. Thus, more subscribers, more money. Small population base, less money. Whether or not the population base is passionate about college football or attends games is irrelevant. Potential is what matters.

4) Academics. Some can make too much of it, but often people dismiss it entirely, which is equally naive. Universities in the same conference collaborate on research projects and share resources. The Big 10 has the most structure system, but the PAC does as well. These are still universities, and structural working relationships matter. Of the 12 teams that moved during conference realignment (NU, Mizzou, CU, A&M, WVU, TCU, Utah, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Louisville, Maryland), 6 are AAU (MU, CU, A&M, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland), 2 were (NU, Syracuse), and the other 4 were desperation adds based on context (WVU, TCU, Utah, Louisville). Academics matters.

5) Great basketball. There are only about 5-8 basketball programs that are legitimately relevant compared to college football. This group is much smaller then those in #1, because a) basketball has fallen off the face of the world when it comes to national relevancy and b) college basketball has been dominated by dynasties that have thwarted the chance at seeing multiple great programs emerge. Ie, if John Wooden won 3 titles instead of 10, he still would have been considered a great, UCLA would still be a blue blood in b-ball, but there would be 7 other championships spread around to build up those programs and thus lead to more b-ball blue bloods.

6) Patsy in football. It is better for a conference to be top heavy and bottom heavy, then it is for it to be middle heavy. Patsies help the great programs go undefeated or finish the season with only 1 loss. A plethora of 7-6 teams don't do that. If we traded ISU and Baylor for Rice and Tulane at the start of the 2011 season, the Big 12 would have had back to back national title appearances, with OSU and KSU trading those losses for easy wins. If Rice and Tulane were in the conference instead of CU and Tech in 2007, OU would be national champions that year. The most overrated thing in conference alignment is having a bunch of decent programs. Programs without titles, tradition. Having the 9th best team in conference go to a bowl game is a disaster waiting to happen, as those type of programs are good enough to knock off the best teams in conference, but not good enough to be a seriously respectable conquest. No one does or should brag about beating a 7-6 Texas Tech team. Whether or not the Big 12's #9 would beat the SEC's #9 is irrelevant, as the relative quality of the Big 12 #9 keeps the Big 12 #1 or #2 from having the chance to compete against the SEC #1 or #2 in a BCS bowl. The ideal conference has 4 major football programs that can compete for a title in any given year, and 6-8 programs that are garbage, that lay down and take a beating to keep the 4 major programs, well, major programs without down years in record.


So, using these metrics, the Big 12 has too many programs that bring too little to a conference. Even before NU et al left to greener pastures (in fact, one of the reasons WHY they left to greener pastures...because those pastures were greener due to better disperal of universities over a greater population base). This area is too sparsely populated with too much overlap to justify two OK teams, two KS teams, the stepsister of IA, and four TX teams (at least the four in the past and current Big 12). Every conference has dead weight--WSU and Or St for the PAC, Miss St or Miss for the SEC--but half the Big 12 brings 2 or fewer ****ets to the conference. There's 2 heavy hitters, and 8 teams that struggle to bring more than 1 or 2 ****ets to any conference.

[Spade1000]

Tulane isn't worthless. They add more to the Big 12 then almost half of the Big 12 adds.

These are the ****ets that a program potentially brings to a conference:

1) Great football program. Of which, there are about 15-20 nationally. The Big 12 has a whopping 2 great programs, used to have 3. This is the only ****et that is valuable, in and of itself. If you bring this, you don't need to bring any of the other ****ets.

If your program doesn't qualify for #1, then it can still be valuable if it includes 2 or more of the secondary ****ets below:

2) Great recruiting hotbed. There are 4 in the country: FL, TX, LA, CA. Within these states, some areas are more valuable than others (Houston metro is more valuable than, say, Lubbock).

3) Population. If a university is located next to a major metro area, it provides the following benefits: possible (or actual) ratings and cable network potential. If Rutgers ever gets to be a good program, it will bring more eyeballs and ratings then, say, Kansas State. If Rutgers goes 10-3 in the Big 10, and KSU goes 10-3 in the Big 12, Rutgers will bring more advertising revenue to the Big 10 then KSU would to the Big 12. The bandwagon potential is greater if a major metro area can be tapped. A cable network taxes cable subscribers whether the subscriber wants the Big 10, Big 12, SEC network or not. Thus, more subscribers, more money. Small population base, less money. Whether or not the population base is passionate about college football or attends games is irrelevant. Potential is what matters.

4) Academics. Some can make too much of it, but often people dismiss it entirely, which is equally naive. Universities in the same conference collaborate on research projects and share resources. The Big 10 has the most structure system, but the PAC does as well. These are still universities, and structural working relationships matter. Of the 12 teams that moved during conference realignment (NU, Mizzou, CU, A&M, WVU, TCU, Utah, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Louisville, Maryland), 6 are AAU (MU, CU, A&M, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland), 2 were (NU, Syracuse), and the other 4 were desperation adds based on context (WVU, TCU, Utah, Louisville). Academics matters.

5) Great basketball. There are only about 5-8 basketball programs that are legitimately relevant compared to college football. This group is much smaller then those in #1, because a) basketball has fallen off the face of the world when it comes to national relevancy and b) college basketball has been dominated by dynasties that have thwarted the chance at seeing multiple great programs emerge. Ie, if John Wooden won 3 titles instead of 10, he still would have been considered a great, UCLA would still be a blue blood in b-ball, but there would be 7 other championships spread around to build up those programs and thus lead to more b-ball blue bloods.

6) Patsy in football. It is better for a conference to be top heavy and bottom heavy, then it is for it to be middle heavy. Patsies help the great programs go undefeated or finish the season with only 1 loss. A plethora of 7-6 teams don't do that. If we traded ISU and Baylor for Rice and Tulane at the start of the 2011 season, the Big 12 would have had back to back national title appearances, with OSU and KSU trading those losses for easy wins. If Rice and Tulane were in the conference instead of CU and Tech in 2007, OU would be national champions that year. The most overrated thing in conference alignment is having a bunch of decent programs. Programs without titles, tradition. Having the 9th best team in conference go to a bowl game is a disaster waiting to happen, as those type of programs are good enough to knock off the best teams in conference, but not good enough to be a seriously respectable conquest. No one does or should brag about beating a 7-6 Texas Tech team. Whether or not the Big 12's #9 would beat the SEC's #9 is irrelevant, as the relative quality of the Big 12 #9 keeps the Big 12 #1 or #2 from having the chance to compete against the SEC #1 or #2 in a BCS bowl. The ideal conference has 4 major football programs that can compete for a title in any given year, and 6-8 programs that are garbage, that lay down and take a beating to keep the 4 major programs, well, major programs without down years in record.


So, using these metrics, the Big 12 has too many programs that bring too little to a conference. Even before NU et al left to greener pastures (in fact, one of the reasons WHY they left to greener pastures...because those pastures were greener due to better disperal of universities over a greater population base). This area is too sparsely populated with too much overlap to justify two OK teams, two KS teams, the stepsister of IA, and four TX teams (at least the four in the past and current Big 12). Every conference has dead weight--WSU and Or St for the PAC, Miss St or Miss for the SEC--but half the Big 12 brings 2 or fewer ****ets to the conference. There's 2 heavy hitters, and 8 teams that struggle to bring more than 1 or 2 ****ets to any conference.

**** TULANE. OU and Fex**** should just join the MAC, Sunbelt, or C-USA and watch the Natty's roll in!

[SpankyNek]

Tulane would be awesome (if we were to get FSU, Clemson, and GT)

[OrlandoSooner]

Tulane has beignets...

[S11-Baylor]

Tulane isn't worthless. They add more to the Big 12 then almost half of the Big 12 adds.

These are the ****ets that a program potentially brings to a conference:

1) Great football program. Of which, there are about 15-20 nationally. The Big 12 has a whopping 2 great programs, used to have 3. This is the only ****et that is valuable, in and of itself. If you bring this, you don't need to bring any of the other ****ets.

If your program doesn't qualify for #1, then it can still be valuable if it includes 2 or more of the secondary ****ets below:

2) Great recruiting hotbed. There are 4 in the country: FL, TX, LA, CA. Within these states, some areas are more valuable than others (Houston metro is more valuable than, say, Lubbock).

3) Population. If a university is located next to a major metro area, it provides the following benefits: possible (or actual) ratings and cable network potential. If Rutgers ever gets to be a good program, it will bring more eyeballs and ratings then, say, Kansas State. If Rutgers goes 10-3 in the Big 10, and KSU goes 10-3 in the Big 12, Rutgers will bring more advertising revenue to the Big 10 then KSU would to the Big 12. The bandwagon potential is greater if a major metro area can be tapped. A cable network taxes cable subscribers whether the subscriber wants the Big 10, Big 12, SEC network or not. Thus, more subscribers, more money. Small population base, less money. Whether or not the population base is passionate about college football or attends games is irrelevant. Potential is what matters.

4) Academics. Some can make too much of it, but often people dismiss it entirely, which is equally naive. Universities in the same conference collaborate on research projects and share resources. The Big 10 has the most structure system, but the PAC does as well. These are still universities, and structural working relationships matter. Of the 12 teams that moved during conference realignment (NU, Mizzou, CU, A&M, WVU, TCU, Utah, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Louisville, Maryland), 6 are AAU (MU, CU, A&M, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland), 2 were (NU, Syracuse), and the other 4 were desperation adds based on context (WVU, TCU, Utah, Louisville). Academics matters.

5) Great basketball. There are only about 5-8 basketball programs that are legitimately relevant compared to college football. This group is much smaller then those in #1, because a) basketball has fallen off the face of the world when it comes to national relevancy and b) college basketball has been dominated by dynasties that have thwarted the chance at seeing multiple great programs emerge. Ie, if John Wooden won 3 titles instead of 10, he still would have been considered a great, UCLA would still be a blue blood in b-ball, but there would be 7 other championships spread around to build up those programs and thus lead to more b-ball blue bloods.

6) Patsy in football. It is better for a conference to be top heavy and bottom heavy, then it is for it to be middle heavy. Patsies help the great programs go undefeated or finish the season with only 1 loss. A plethora of 7-6 teams don't do that. If we traded ISU and Baylor for Rice and Tulane at the start of the 2011 season, the Big 12 would have had back to back national title appearances, with OSU and KSU trading those losses for easy wins. If Rice and Tulane were in the conference instead of CU and Tech in 2007, OU would be national champions that year. The most overrated thing in conference alignment is having a bunch of decent programs. Programs without titles, tradition. Having the 9th best team in conference go to a bowl game is a disaster waiting to happen, as those type of programs are good enough to knock off the best teams in conference, but not good enough to be a seriously respectable conquest. No one does or should brag about beating a 7-6 Texas Tech team. Whether or not the Big 12's #9 would beat the SEC's #9 is irrelevant, as the relative quality of the Big 12 #9 keeps the Big 12 #1 or #2 from having the chance to compete against the SEC #1 or #2 in a BCS bowl. The ideal conference has 4 major football programs that can compete for a title in any given year, and 6-8 programs that are garbage, that lay down and take a beating to keep the 4 major programs, well, major programs without down years in record.


So, using these metrics, the Big 12 has too many programs that bring too little to a conference. Even before NU et al left to greener pastures (in fact, one of the reasons WHY they left to greener pastures...because those pastures were greener due to better disperal of universities over a greater population base). This area is too sparsely populated with too much overlap to justify two OK teams, two KS teams, the stepsister of IA, and four TX teams (at least the four in the past and current Big 12). Every conference has dead weight--WSU and Or St for the PAC, Miss St or Miss for the SEC--but half the Big 12 brings 2 or fewer ****ets to the conference. There's 2 heavy hitters, and 8 teams that struggle to bring more than 1 or 2 ****ets to any conference.

1- Any discussion of our poor tv deal from 2007-2010's summer has to include a mention of the market resetting. We sign our tier 2 deal with Fox and our tier 1 deal with ESPN pre-Beebe in early 2007. The BTN explodes late 07/early 08 and resets the tier 2 market. One year after our deal is signed the SEC lands a tier 2 deal with ESPN for 10x the amount we sold to Fox. Had timing been different it never would have been that big of a gap. All our deals before that one were behind the B1G and SEC but were nipping at their heels behind... not we are about to get lapped behind.

2- Based on your criteria here are how the probably scraps of the ACC and the future Big East teams that meet that criteria. I also added enrollments greater than 30k undergrads as that would imply growth potential as a "project".

- BC- Academics, market, up and down in sports.
- Syracuse- ELITE hoops, strong academics
- Wake Forest- Usually good at hoops but in a slump, very good academics, great state for recruiting, almost equidistant to Charlotte and Raleigh. Bad at FB right now but went to BCS in 2006 and put up a fight against Petrino's best Louisville team who almost made the national title game.
- Duke - If left out they have THE modern hoops brand, great academics, good state for recruiting, market, and fb patsy.
- Pitt- Good academics, recruiting, market, solid hoops

Big East
- Tulane - Academics, Market, Patsy, Recruiting
- East Carolina - Recruiting, and MAYBE population if you consider the state as a whole. No centralized market though. They do really well in attendance though and are only about 5,000 behind UNC and NC State in that department. They have solid facilities.
- USF/UCF- Recruiting, large enrollments (36k undergrad for USF, 50k undergrad UCF), located in large markets (Tampa/Orlando)
- Navy FB ONLY- National brand due to service academy, located in populated state of Maryland which helps recruiting
- SMU- Academics, market (redundant for us), recruiting
- Houston- Enrollment > 30k, market, recruiting
- Memphis- Market, recruiting, great hoops brand, patsy in fb
- Cincy- Market, recruiting, decent but not great academics, good bb and 2 BE titles/bcs trips in fb.
- Temple- Market, very good hoops, MAYBE recruiting.
- UConn- Academics are pretty good and outside shot at getting aau, elite hoops and wbb, flagship of their state, won BE in 2010 football

[x97]

Great article from tomahawknation about FSU's position in regards to the B12:
http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/1...gnment-roundup

The main points:

1. There simply is not a large groundswell of support for a B12 move from FSU fans and, more importantly, boosters.

2. For FSU to move it would require 3-5 regional partners. FSU doesn't even want to move so how are you going to convince partners (who have been even more adamant against a move) to move too?

3. The B12 has a myriad of problems. Not the least of which is that it is a 2 school, small population conference. This is not attractive to FSU.

4. Any money difference between the ACC and B12 simply will not be significant. It definitely will not pay for FSU's potential exit penalties and travel costs.

I think this article pretty sums it up. This idea that the B12 was going to poach Clemson and FSU and stop at 12 was grossly exaggerated by West Virginia bloggers. It will never be just a 2 school addition. That's not palatable to any of the current ACC schools. ACC schools join if 2 things happen. Fist, a major ACC raid by some other conference that leaves the ACC mortally wounded.....and secondly, if many E/SE schools join. Personally, I don't think the ACC misses a beat if the B1G raided Virginia and BC. The ACC could probably go to ESPN and get ESPN to pay the conference as a 14 team conference still just like the B12 did when CU and NU left and they still got paid. They could distribute the same money 12 ways instead of 14 and everyone would come out like bandits. Plus, the ACC would keep its major football schools and its blue bloods in basketball intact. Win-win. I don't think a situation ever comes up where the B1G is able to poach North Carolina.

This is pretty much over for the forseeable future. Good luck, folks.

[Omega Man]

Brilliant analysis, top to bottom. We definitely do not need to be in a SEC or PAC 12

Tulane isn't worthless. They add more to the Big 12 then almost half of the Big 12 adds.

These are the ****ets that a program potentially brings to a conference:

1) Great football program. Of which, there are about 15-20 nationally. The Big 12 has a whopping 2 great programs, used to have 3. This is the only ****et that is valuable, in and of itself. If you bring this, you don't need to bring any of the other ****ets.

If your program doesn't qualify for #1, then it can still be valuable if it includes 2 or more of the secondary ****ets below:

2) Great recruiting hotbed. There are 4 in the country: FL, TX, LA, CA. Within these states, some areas are more valuable than others (Houston metro is more valuable than, say, Lubbock).

3) Population. If a university is located next to a major metro area, it provides the following benefits: possible (or actual) ratings and cable network potential. If Rutgers ever gets to be a good program, it will bring more eyeballs and ratings then, say, Kansas State. If Rutgers goes 10-3 in the Big 10, and KSU goes 10-3 in the Big 12, Rutgers will bring more advertising revenue to the Big 10 then KSU would to the Big 12. The bandwagon potential is greater if a major metro area can be tapped. A cable network taxes cable subscribers whether the subscriber wants the Big 10, Big 12, SEC network or not. Thus, more subscribers, more money. Small population base, less money. Whether or not the population base is passionate about college football or attends games is irrelevant. Potential is what matters.

4) Academics. Some can make too much of it, but often people dismiss it entirely, which is equally naive. Universities in the same conference collaborate on research projects and share resources. The Big 10 has the most structure system, but the PAC does as well. These are still universities, and structural working relationships matter. Of the 12 teams that moved during conference realignment (NU, Mizzou, CU, A&M, WVU, TCU, Utah, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Louisville, Maryland), 6 are AAU (MU, CU, A&M, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland), 2 were (NU, Syracuse), and the other 4 were desperation adds based on context (WVU, TCU, Utah, Louisville). Academics matters.

5) Great basketball. There are only about 5-8 basketball programs that are legitimately relevant compared to college football. This group is much smaller then those in #1, because a) basketball has fallen off the face of the world when it comes to national relevancy and b) college basketball has been dominated by dynasties that have thwarted the chance at seeing multiple great programs emerge. Ie, if John Wooden won 3 titles instead of 10, he still would have been considered a great, UCLA would still be a blue blood in b-ball, but there would be 7 other championships spread around to build up those programs and thus lead to more b-ball blue bloods.

6) Patsy in football. It is better for a conference to be top heavy and bottom heavy, then it is for it to be middle heavy. Patsies help the great programs go undefeated or finish the season with only 1 loss. A plethora of 7-6 teams don't do that. If we traded ISU and Baylor for Rice and Tulane at the start of the 2011 season, the Big 12 would have had back to back national title appearances, with OSU and KSU trading those losses for easy wins. If Rice and Tulane were in the conference instead of CU and Tech in 2007, OU would be national champions that year. The most overrated thing in conference alignment is having a bunch of decent programs. Programs without titles, tradition. Having the 9th best team in conference go to a bowl game is a disaster waiting to happen, as those type of programs are good enough to knock off the best teams in conference, but not good enough to be a seriously respectable conquest. No one does or should brag about beating a 7-6 Texas Tech team. Whether or not the Big 12's #9 would beat the SEC's #9 is irrelevant, as the relative quality of the Big 12 #9 keeps the Big 12 #1 or #2 from having the chance to compete against the SEC #1 or #2 in a BCS bowl. The ideal conference has 4 major football programs that can compete for a title in any given year, and 6-8 programs that are garbage, that lay down and take a beating to keep the 4 major programs, well, major programs without down years in record.


So, using these metrics, the Big 12 has too many programs that bring too little to a conference. Even before NU et al left to greener pastures (in fact, one of the reasons WHY they left to greener pastures...because those pastures were greener due to better disperal of universities over a greater population base). This area is too sparsely populated with too much overlap to justify two OK teams, two KS teams, the stepsister of IA, and four TX teams (at least the four in the past and current Big 12). Every conference has dead weight--WSU and Or St for the PAC, Miss St or Miss for the SEC--but half the Big 12 brings 2 or fewer ****ets to the conference. There's 2 heavy hitters, and 8 teams that struggle to bring more than 1 or 2 ****ets to any conference.

[T-town Sooner]

Great article from tomahawknation about FSU's position in regards to the B12:
http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/1...gnment-roundup

The main points:

1. There simply is not a large groundswell of support for a B12 move from FSU fans and, more importantly, boosters.

2. For FSU to move it would require 4-6 regional partners. FSU doesn't even want to move so how are you going to convince partners (who have been even more adamant against a move) to move too?

3. The B12 has a myriad of problems. Not the least of which is that it is a 2 school, small population conference. This is not attractive to FSU.

4. Any money difference between the ACC and B12 simply will not be significant. It definitely will not pay for FSU's potential exit penalties and travel costs.

I think this article pretty sums it up. This idea that the B12 was going to poach Clemson and FSU and stop at 12 was grossly exaggerated by West Virginia bloggers. It will never be just a 2 school addition. That's not palatable to any of the current ACC schools. ACC schools join if 2 things happen. Fist, a major ACC raid by some other conference that leaves the ACC mortally wounded.....and secondly, if many E/SE schools join. Personally, I don't think the ACC misses a beat if the B1G raided Virginia and BC. The ACC could probably go to ESPN and get ESPN to pay the conference as a 14 team conference still just like the B12 did when CU and NU left and they still got paid. They could distribute the same money 12 ways instead of 14 and everyone would come out like bandits. Plus, the ACC would keep its major football schools and its blue bloods in basketball intact. Win-win. I don't think a situation ever comes up where the B1G is able to poach North Carolina.

This is pretty much over for the forseeable future. Good luck, folks.

That doesn't change the fact that

West
ISU
OSU
OU
UT
TT
TCU
BU

East
FSU
Miami
GT
Clemson
WVU
KU
KSU


Is a much stronger conference in every way than the current ACC. Travel is no worse, Even Lubbock is closer to FSU than Boston is. FSU now plays Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Duke, BC in conference play, the "Big 14" would be MUCH better for them.

This new "Big 14" would be a true rival conference to the SEC, where the ACC (and Big 12) are little sister conferences as of now.

[OSULadyCowboy]

Found this interesting SIAP:

kbohls‏@kbohls On B12 expansion, UT AD DeLoss Dodds: "I like 10 ... you've got to be realistic. If you want to be part of change ... got to change w/ it."

• 29mMarlon Medlock‏@mwmlonestar @kbohls so is he saying although he likes 10, he understands that expansion is going to happen
• 28mkbohls‏@kbohls @mwmlonestar I think that's exactly what he's saying. Big 12's hand may be forced, against its wishes.

• 7mkbohls‏@kbohls @theDudeofWV @mwmlonestar @LandThieves I think the ACC has been "pilfering teams" from other conferences for awhile. Like Pitt, Syra,BC, ...
• 2mJake Trotter‏@Jake_Trotter @kbohls @theDudeofWV @mwmlonestar @LandThieves Going to be either the Big 12 or the ACC that survives. Don't see both being able to do it.

[RockFlagandEagle]

Going to be either the Big 12 or the ACC that survives. Don't see both being able to do it.

Very true. And it may be neither.

[Redhawk]

Very true. And it may be neither.

Long term? I'd actually think "neither" has the best odds. I can't see how the Big 12 survives if the PAC ever got serious about expanding. The Big 12 is the PAC's only real option, as most of the MWC/WAC schools bring so little to the table.

[x97]

Found this interesting SIAP:

kbohls‏@kbohls On B12 expansion, UT AD DeLoss Dodds: "I like 10 ... you've got to be realistic. If you want to be part of change ... got to change w/ it."

• 29mMarlon Medlock‏@mwmlonestar @kbohls so is he saying although he likes 10, he understands that expansion is going to happen
• 28mkbohls‏@kbohls @mwmlonestar I think that's exactly what he's saying. Big 12's hand may be forced, against its wishes.

• 7mkbohls‏@kbohls @theDudeofWV @mwmlonestar @LandThieves I think the ACC has been "pilfering teams" from other conferences for awhile. Like Pitt, Syra,BC, ...
• 2mJake Trotter‏@Jake_Trotter @kbohls @theDudeofWV @mwmlonestar @LandThieves Going to be either the Big 12 or the ACC that survives. Don't see both being able to do it.

Once again, this changes NOTHING from FSU's view point. LOL. Nothing to see here.

[The]

Once again, this changes NOTHING from FSU's view point. LOL. Nothing to see here.

**** off, you Mormon ****.

[x97]

That doesn't change the fact that

West
ISU
OSU
OU
UT
TT
TCU
BU

East
FSU
Miami
GT
Clemson
WVU
KU
KSU


Is a much stronger conference in every way than the current ACC. Travel is no worse, Even Lubbock is closer to FSU than Boston is. FSU now plays Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Duke, BC in conference play, the "Big 14" would be MUCH better for them.

This new "Big 14" would be a true rival conference to the SEC, where the ACC (and Big 12) are little sister conferences as of now.

This gets closer to resolving the problem because FSU would bring along 3 other partners. Problem once again is that FSU doesn't want to move.....and their partners even less so.

[T-town Sooner]

Long term? I'd actually think "neither" has the best odds. I can't see how the Big 12 survives if the PAC ever got serious about expanding. The Big 12 is the PAC's only real option, as most of the MWC/WAC schools bring so little to the table.

If the Big 12 can add FSU, Miami, Clemson and (GT/Louisville) I think OU and other Big 12 schools would turn down the PAC. Id rather big in a Southern and Rival to SEC conference, than the PAC 16

[LASooner]

28mkbohls‏@kbohls @mwmlonestar I think that's exactly what he's saying. Big 12's hand may be forced, against its wishes.

I.E. The Big 12 is being forced to do the smart thing in spite of their track record of stupid moves with regard to expansion.

[x97]

I.E. The Big 12 is being forced to do the smart thing in spite of their track record of stupid moves with regard to expansion.

This has never been a matter of smart or dumb. It's a matter based upon the fact that FSU and friends don't want the B12. You look a lot better to say "we are happy with 10" then to say "we offered and they laughed at us". Digest that thought for a while and then this whole thing will make sense.

[MikeLucky]

This has never been a matter of smart or dumb. It's a matter based upon the fact that FSU and friends don't want the B12. You look a lot better to say "we are happy with 10" then to say "we offered and they laughed at us". Digest that thought for a while and then this whole thing will make sense.

Says a fan of a school that we already told to **** off... there's some digestion of your own.

[LASooner]

This has never been a matter of smart or dumb. It's a matter based upon the fact that FSU and friends don't want the B12. You look a lot better to say "we are happy with 10" then to say "we offered and they laughed at us". Digest that thought for a while and then this whole thing will make sense.

You've already shown you're not clear on what's going on when you asked why Maryland and Rutgers were picked up by the B1G

[x97]

You've already shown you're not clear on what's going on when you asked why Maryland and Rutgers were picked up by the B1G

LOL. Really? I guess we shall see on the Maryland/Rutgers thing. Several prominent TV people are saying the same thing. Maryland, and especially Rutgers, would not have been added if Virginia and UNC had been available. I stand by that statement.

Secondly, the things I'm saying about FSU are logical and being repeated by FSU sources. There is no groundswell of support for a B12 move. Financially, it doesn't make a lot of sense. And FSU wouldn't be able to recruit partners to join them anyways.

Why do you think Castiglione was praising Bowlsby so much? Hmmm. Think about it. It's not because FSU was begging and Bowlsby turned them away. It's because the B12 has no ACC options and Bowlsby is doing the best with what he has.

[MadMex]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...isher-acc-s-tv

Before the 12' season started, Jimbo Fisher was saying that FSU should look into a move to the Big 12. I realize he isn't the AD of FSU... I'm just saying, at this point in realignment, take what ANYONE says with a grain of salt. Right now, none of us know ****. We are regurgitating whatever the media feeds us. And to complete this magic trick known as expansion, the B1G, SEC, and BIG 12 would really like us all to look at one hand while they do a slide of hand with the other. If Daddy Dodds and everyone is saying, "Nothing to see here"... there's probably something going on. SEE: Every university that has switched conferences right before they made the change. They all said the same thing. "We're happy where we are... "

[OU812]

All I know is these stupid ****ing byu and a&m fans can suck it. Non-OU fans that come to this board and vehemently argue with us usually have an alternative agenda. For byu fans, they desperately want into the big 12 and they want to be relevant. For a&m fans, they want us to believe they are now better than us just bc they're in the SEC.

Either way, they can suck it.

[Redhawk]

If the Big 12 can add FSU, Miami, Clemson and (GT/Louisville) I think OU and other Big 12 schools would turn down the PAC. Id rather big in a Southern and Rival to SEC conference, than the PAC 16

Good point. I'm still not sure how the PAC expands without the Big 12 (without adding MWC/WAC schools). But if they could move NOW and the Big 12 schools could go now to the PAC (both of which really don't look to be options)....the left over of the ACC, Big 12, Big East (is there any left worth a ****? Uconn maybe) would still be a solid conference.....sort of.

If the ACC gets divided up...the biggest loser besides the ACC.....will be the PAC.

[IndySooner]

It's always made the most sense for the Big 12 to disappear, but the leaders seem to have staved off the PAC. One thing is for sure, though, this is far from over.

[James]

I.E. The Big 12 is being forced to do the smart thing in spite of their track record of stupid moves with regard to expansion.

knowing the Big XII, we could lose Kansas and someone else for their basketball, and we would end up adding something like Arkansas State and Idaho and the powers that be would force the **** sandwich of "the league has never been stronger" down our throats

[TeLeFaWx]

All I know is these stupid ****ing byu and a&m fans can suck it. Non-OU fans that come to this board and vehemently argue with us usually have an alternative agenda. For byu fans, they desperately want into the big 12 and they want to be relevant. For a&m fans, they want us to believe they are now better than us just bc they're in the SEC.

Either way, they can suck it.

41-13.

Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*

[MikeLucky]

41-13.

Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*

77-0.

So, when watching that game how did it feel to see your d-lineman celebrate when we LET him tackle us on the 1 yard so that we didn't score again making it 84-0? He celebrated...

[x97]

All I know is these stupid ****ing byu and a&m fans can suck it. Non-OU fans that come to this board and vehemently argue with us usually have an alternative agenda. For byu fans, they desperately want into the big 12 and they want to be relevant. For a&m fans, they want us to believe they are now better than us just bc they're in the SEC.

Either way, they can suck it.

31-6, 14-13

[MikeLucky]

31-6, 14-13

I'm sure the golden tadpole is very proud of those moments. But, would you say he is more or less proud of Jim McMahon?

[x97]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...isher-acc-s-tv

Before the 12' season started, Jimbo Fisher was saying that FSU should look into a move to the Big 12. I realize he isn't the AD of FSU... I'm just saying, at this point in realignment, take what ANYONE says with a grain of salt. Right now, none of us know ****. We are regurgitating whatever the media feeds us. And to complete this magic trick known as expansion, the B1G, SEC, and BIG 12 would really like us all to look at one hand while they do a slide of hand with the other. If Daddy Dodds and everyone is saying, "Nothing to see here"... there's probably something going on. SEE: Every university that has switched conferences right before they made the change. They all said the same thing. "We're happy where we are... "

Did you really just post a 9 month old article? LOL. I actually think there may have been a little bit of momentum early last summer. That is now dead. Any tiny support a move may have had has withered away. And Barron (FSU president) has always maintained that the B12 was a non-starter for FSU.

As for what other people said in the past regarding alignment is unrelated to this situation. There were actually groundswells of support for those moves. There is no longer any for FSU (at least not to the B12). There aren't for the reasons I outlined above.

[DelMarSooner]

It's always made the most sense for the Big 12 to disappear, but the leaders seem to have staved off the PAC. One thing is for sure, though, this is far from over.

Wisdom from our fore fathers: "Neath the Western sky, OU's chant will never die, live on University."

[MadMex]

Did you really just post a 9 month old article? LOL.

Yes. As stated in the first sentance of that post. I'm only saying, don't listen to anything anyone says about realignment until real substantial news comes down. We don't know anything because we aren't involved with the decision making process in any way. Our opinions and thoughts don't matter in the least.

[x97]

Yes. As stated in the first sentance of that post. I'm only saying, don't listen to anything anyone says about realignment until real substantial news comes down. We don't know anything because we aren't involved with the decision making process in any way. Our opinions and thoughts don't matter in the least.

Once again, there is no groundswell of support among FSU supporters to move to the Big 12. No news is coming down because there is no news to report. Did you not read the article I posted earlier? Even the few FSU supporters who argued for a move earlier have stopped pushing for it now. While they are not totally enamored with the thought of the ACC the B12 fixes none of their problems......and creates a whole host of new ones.

It's over.

[Mephistopheles]

People talk about how adding TCU/WVU diluted the Big 12 because the conference was essentially adding mid majors, yet, oddly, no one says the same thing about adding teams from by far the worst of the 5 major conferences. If the Big 12 is significantly better on average than the ACC and it is, the only way that adding ACC teams improves the Big 12 on the field is if those ACC teams are better than the average Big 12 team, and outside of FSU and possibly Clemson, I'm not sure that is true. Sure, the conference might make a few more dollars and get a little bit of unearned positive perception, but it would almost certainly suffer on the field from the addition of a number of ACC teams.

2 ACC teams= possible upgrade. FSU isn't the power they used to be and Clemson is insanely unpredictable.
4 ACC teams= at best a push. If Miami is one of the 4, a push seems unlikely.
6 ACC teams= worse league on average

[SpankyNek]

Once again, there is no groundswell of support among FSU supporters to move to the Big 12. No news is coming down because there is no news to report. Did you not read the article I posted earlier? Even the few FSU supporters who argued for a move earlier have stopped pushing for it now. While they are not totally enamored with the thought of the ACC the B12 fixes none of their problems......and creates a whole host of new ones.

It's over.

Measuring "groundswell" is a fool's venture.

[T-town Sooner]

People talk about how adding TCU/WVU diluted the Big 12 because the conference was essentially adding mid majors, yet, oddly, no one says the same thing about adding teams from by far the worst of the 5 major conferences. If the Big 12 is significantly better on average than the ACC and it is, the only way that adding ACC teams improves the Big 12 on the field is if those ACC teams are better than the average Big 12 team, and outside of FSU and possibly Clemson, I'm not sure that is true. Sure, the conference might make a few more dollars and get a little bit of unearned positive perception, but it would almost certainly suffer on the field from the addition of a number of ACC teams.

2 ACC teams= possible upgrade. FSU isn't the power they used to be and Clemson is insanely unpredictable.
4 ACC teams= at best a push. If Miami is one of the 4, a push seems unlikely.
6 ACC teams= worse league on average

That is too short term (recent success) focused.

-FSU is up there with OU and Texas as a program long term and would give us 3 super powers instead of 2.
-GT, VT and Clemson are as strong of programs of any in the Big 12 outside of the top 2 (OSU, TT, WVU)
-Miami is a little different but in their own way they contribute plenty.

I could see and argument for stopping at 14, but there are 4-5 ACC programs that would raise the bar in the Big 12-2

[T-town Sooner]

Measuring "groundswell" is a fool's venture.

Also the groundswell in the Big 10 was never to expand, yet they continue to.

[MDSooner28]

There was zero "groundswell" for Maryland to the Big Ten